I am so angry with the [exclusive, expensive, primarily for Nth generation rich white people] high school I dropped out of right now. They forked me over with disability things and told my parents I was an "intellectual narcissist", causing me to drop out before I failed out and that was bad enough. Now they are suing another school for underprivileged/minority students for "trademark infringement" of their name (they have a very specific trademark and the other school's name isn't it. The actual trademark holder for that name doesn't give a fork).

And what damages??My high school: $40k/your/studentOther high school: $70k/your TOTAL

Are they arguing that maybe 2 people could have got confused and accidentally applied to a school 2 hours away? Pretty sure this is a case of privileged rich people trying to bully a less wealthy institution into giving them what they want using the high cost of a legal battle as leverage.

What does color really mean and how would you define yourself or how would others define yourself? I can't remember the original context but I said to someone who a knowledge of Persian culture (but not Persian themselves) about Persians being brown. The person told me that would be something they would most likely find offensive as they consider themselves white or caucasian. I personally had no clue but I've only had a bit of exposure here and there to those from the middle east in general, other than some Jewish friends in college.

Anyway, Leonardo DiCaprio was cast as a Persian poet (Rumi) in a movie. I saw an article saying that Rumi was definitely brown and hashtag #RumiWasntWhite. The person who initially made the comment wasn't Middle Eastern. Now of course I know what we mean by white here and that is of European descent. Yes a middle eastern person should definitely be cast and there are plenty of options. But I also wonder if those trying to say that have potentially caused some offense on their part in protesting whitewashing of movies.

Persian ethnicity is extremely complicated, from what I understand, but in general, people from Persia/Iran are considered as being Indo-European people as distinct from Arab, for what that's worth in terms of this discussion. There has historically also been a great deal of tension between Iran and its ethnically/linguistically Arabic neighbors. So I could imagine that to someone from Persia/Iran it might be equally offensive to cast someone of Arabic origin as it would be to cast say, Leonardo Dicaprio as Rumi. I could be wrong about this, though, as I've only read some books on Iran and am by no means an expert.

(As far as casting goes, wouldn't it actually make the most sense to cast, say, a Persian actor in the role? Iran has a booming film industry. If they can't find an Iranian actor for the role (or even Iranian-American), I suspect they're not trying very hard.)

_________________I ate the shiitake out of inappropriateness. - Hollie

It is a shame that casting isn't as nuanced as it should be. Although it is a while, things like Lou Diamond Phillips being cast as Mexican or Native American (when he is Filipino) or Naveen Andrews being cast as Iraqi/Middle Eastern when he is Indian. And I always wonder about the mixing and matching that goes on when someone is supposed to be Japanese, Chinese or otherwise Asian and any Asian will do. The right answer is just to consult with someone who is of the culture and culturally aware.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.

It is a shame that casting isn't as nuanced as it should be. Although it is a while, things like Lou Diamond Phillips being cast as Mexican or Native American (when he is Filipino) or Naveen Andrews being cast as Iraqi/Middle Eastern when he is Indian. And I always wonder about the mixing and matching that goes on when someone is supposed to be Japanese, Chinese or otherwise Asian and any Asian will do. The right answer is just to consult with someone who is of the culture and culturally aware.

Agreed! There are certainly enough actors out there that it should be a lot easier for filmmakers to actually cast people of the right culture/ethnicity, but then they probably don't have the "Big Name" recognition that the studios want, and then those actors remain unknown and don't get parts and so on and so on.

(I also wanted to come back here and say that I know that "Arab" is also not a simply defined concept/ethnicity, but I was using it above as a catch-all in the way that I've seen Iranian folks use it to distinguish themselves from other peoples of the Middle East. And even the term Middle East is incredibly nebulous and hard to pin down.)

ETA: Zwingtip, I didn't see your post initially because of the page flip. I'm sorry that happened to you. :(

_________________I ate the shiitake out of inappropriateness. - Hollie

It is a shame that casting isn't as nuanced as it should be. Although it is a while, things like Lou Diamond Phillips being cast as Mexican or Native American (when he is Filipino) or Naveen Andrews being cast as Iraqi/Middle Eastern when he is Indian. And I always wonder about the mixing and matching that goes on when someone is supposed to be Japanese, Chinese or otherwise Asian and any Asian will do. The right answer is just to consult with someone who is of the culture and culturally aware.

Apropos, I was watching a movie last night with a Korean-American actor playing a character with a distinctly Latino name. I thought it was pretty cool.

Sooo, this is slightly confusing, but George Takei (gay/old Sulu) is mad at Simon Pegg (not gay/new Scotty/co-writing the next ST movie) for making Hikaru Sulu (now played by John Cho) openly gay.

Quote:

But on Thursday [Takei] responded by saying he thought the move was “really unfortunate”, as he felt it suggested sexuality was something that could be retrofitted. He also said his concerns had been ignored by the film-makers.

Quote:

In his attack, Takei said he felt Pegg and the team had failed to pay due deference to creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision – especially galling given the film is released in Star Trek’s 50th anniversary year.

Pegg's amazing response:

Quote:

“He’s right, it is unfortunate, it’s unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn’t featured an LGBT character until now. We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘gay character’, rather than simply for who they are, and isn’t that tokenism? [We] loved the idea of it being someone we already knew because the audience have a pre-existing opinion of that character as a human being, unaffected by any prejudice. Their sexual orientation is just one of many personal aspects, not the defining characteristic. Also, the audience would infer that there has been an LGBT presence in the Trek Universe from the beginning (at least in the Kelvin timeline), that a gay hero isn’t something new or strange. It’s also important to note that at no point do we suggest that our Sulu was ever closeted, why would he need to be? It’s just hasn’t come up before.”

What is up with Takei? I try to give him some slack because I can't imagine what it was like in his youth being a. Japanese-American during/shortly after internment and b. gay. I imagine there's a lot of internalized hatred there. And that's really sad, I feel terribly for him that he still apparently carries that around. But damn, dude, it's 2016, and you're letting your self-hatred affect others. Chill.

It makes sense to me, Takei knew this character for 50 years, he knew everything about his backstory and everything he'd ever done, more than anyone else in the world. To suddenly change something he felt was so fundamental about Sulu just because Takei himself is gay probably feels dishonest to the character he was playing. And I think it's disrespectful that they talked to Takei about it and he said no and then they went and did it anyway.

Sure, but at the same time, Takei doesn't "own" Sulu any more than Shatner owns Kirk or Dirk Benedict owns Starbuck. Takei's defense is that a gay Sulu hadn't been in Roddenberry's original "vision", which somehow carries extra significance because of the 50th anniversary. This is the same neckbeard reasoning behind why the next Thor shouldn't be a woman or why Donald Glover got racist Tweets at the mere suggestion of him playing Spiderman.

Sure, but at the same time, Takei doesn't "own" Sulu any more than Shatner owns Kirk or Dirk Benedict owns Starbuck. Takei's defense is that a gay Sulu hadn't been in Roddenberry's original "vision", which somehow carries extra significance because of the 50th anniversary. This is the same neckbeard reasoning behind why the next Thor shouldn't be a woman or why Donald Glover got racist Tweets at the mere suggestion of him playing Spiderman.

That's a good point about Dirk Bennedict but I think another important aspect is that they are conflating Sulu with Takei which he has probably struggled with all of his life. Leonard Nimoy wrote a book called "I am not Spock" and then wrote a follow up "I am Spock".

Sure, but at the same time, Takei doesn't "own" Sulu any more than Shatner owns Kirk or Dirk Benedict owns Starbuck. Takei's defense is that a gay Sulu hadn't been in Roddenberry's original "vision", which somehow carries extra significance because of the 50th anniversary. This is the same neckbeard reasoning behind why the next Thor shouldn't be a woman or why Donald Glover got racist Tweets at the mere suggestion of him playing Spiderman.

That's a good point about Dirk Bennedict but I think another important aspect is that they are conflating Sulu with Takei which he has probably struggled with all of his life. Leonard Nimoy wrote a book called "I am not Spock" and then wrote a follow up "I am Spock".

Nimoy was an awesome dude. That's a good point, I can see why it would be frustrating if they were like "Takei's gay, so Sulu is too!" And to be sure, there is a bit of that in the fact that it was undeniably a nod to Takei and the courage it would have taken him to come out, when he did, as a person of color. I think it's far less simplistic than that, though, and overall I feel like the way in which the current writers/creators are adding a gay character to the Star Trek universe could be done a loooooot worse.

Also, from what I understood from Takei's own admission as described in this article, Roddenberry only didn't have a gay character because the network wouldn't let him get away with it. So if that's correct, he's contradicting himself about his reasons for not wanting the character to be gay (Gene wanted to but couldn't/it wasn't Gene's vision).

I absolutely agree with Simon Pegg's reasoning and I'm happy to see a character who we know isn't going to be killed off be openly gay without that being their defining characteristic.

_________________A pie eating contest is a battle with no losers. - amandabear

Yeah I totally get where Takei is coming from here, but I also totally get why they did it. He's one of the only characters I can think of that doesn't have much in the way of a love story background. I know he got kinda sexy with a lady in at least one episode - but that doesn't tell me he's not gay! He was just experimenting, or something... But unlike most characters there's not been an active dating/marriage situation with him.

In the original shows only Kirk, nurse Chapel and McCoy really have backstories of being straight. Spock's only story was that he had to have sex in an arranged marriage scenario because of Vulcan biology. But then I forget that they stuck him with Uhura in these new movies. Don't you wonder if they picked Sulu to be gay because Takei is a prominent gay figure? It seems they could have just as easily made Checkov gay right?

I'm 100% into exploring LGBTQ in the new shows and it sounds like this bit will be fine and maybe Takei will come around. It just seems wrong that the straight director and writer are telling the gay man what he should want for his character. I get he doesn't have ownership of the character and neither does Roddenberry. But, I think it's important for straight allies to listen to how people want to be represented.

Even thigh I feel Pro-Sulu-Being-Gay, I do feel a bit weird about the fact that the new actor who plays Sulu doesn't really come across all that gay. I think part of the reason I feel Pro-Sulu-Being-Gay is that Takei's Sulu is, well, pretty super gay. Even as a young child I felt super into Sulu in a totally gay way, before he came out.

Edit - this feels a bit like a de-rail. I do think there's great points in how uncomfortable it all is in a straight person telling a gay person how to feel about a gay-related issue.

A friend of mine pointed out too that the way they are portraying Sulu's sexuality is very domesticated. He's already married and has a kid, so we won't be seeing him having whirlwind romances with aliens like Kirk would and his husband will be left behind and barely referenced. In the original series Sulu is very much an adventurous swashbuckler, so it does seem off that he's the first of the crew who is settled down and the one who won't be meeting anyone on their adventures. It's far more of a background, shoved to the side aspect of himself and I'm cynical enough to think that maybe we're seeing that family so it will be so much sadder if Sulu gets killed off.

The new films just have not been very progressive and Takei from what I understand isn't a fan of them. I do appreciate that Pegg is a big fan and is trying to get the films back into the spirit of what Star Trek is about, but I can't blame Takei for being suspicious about it at all.

_________________I was really surprised the first time I saw a penis. After those banana tutorials, I was expecting something so different. -Tofulish

A friend of mine pointed out too that the way they are portraying Sulu's sexuality is very domesticated. He's already married and has a kid, so we won't be seeing him having whirlwind romances with aliens like Kirk would and his husband will be left behind and barely referenced.

Hmm - dang. Good points. It would be so great to see a reference to Sulu's shirt-off-fencing-bad-ass episode but with him flirting up some male alien.

There is clearly another factor at play here above and beyond privilege/slow service. I don't doubt that this kid is in a coma in the hospital instead of shot dead in the street because he's white, not for a second. But do I believe his sense of entitlement alone caused him to kill and eat his childhood neighbors because of slow service in a restaurant? No, there's drugs or mental illness or something else going on here for sure. At any rate, it's a horrible and tragic story. And gruesome, too.